DR BELSHAW AND DOUGLAS CREDIT.

Timaru Herald, Volume CXXXVII, Issue 19570, 17 August 1933, Page 7

DR BELSHAW AND DOUGLAS CREDIT.

To the Editor ot “ The Tlmaru neraia Sir—On the 9th inst., a special and peculiar letter written by A. M. Paterson, appeared in your paper. The letter was special because it displayed the ideas of a Douglas convert the letter was peculiar because it abused a man's training, education and intelligence, while it ignored his statements. The letter was not an argument, because it contained no argument; the letter was not a reasoning, because it contained no logical reasoning; but the letter was an example of useless and fallacious literature, and to most people, its nakedness would display its own absurdity, to most people, it would display its owui foolishness. Mr Paterson states in effect, that Professor Belshaw does not know all there is to know about economics. Professor Belshaw would not claim that he does know all there is to know about economics. However, every intelligent person must admit that Professor Belshaw’s knowledge of economic science is far superior to that possessed by Douglas supporters. The reason is clear—Professor Belshaw has gained his knowledge of the science by years of patient study. But Douglas quacks are usually ignorant of the very fundamental principles of economics, because they have no use for economics. They base their inspired belief on some glittering philosophy. Evidently they do not even understand their glittering philosophy. If they did understand it, they would hold it up as an economic reasoning, however, they clutch their morsel of philosophy and with

amazing and uncontrolled audacity, they abuse trained economists. It is a paradox. It Is a personification of egoistic ignorance. Mr Paterson also states In effect, that Professor Belshaw knows no more about economics than an engineer knows about machinery. Working on this comparison, we must conclude that as Douglas is an engineer, he knows nothing about economics. This conclusion is definitely correct, and in previous letters, I have given reasons and facts which prove its correctness. Again, Mr Paterson states in effect, that it is impossible for Professor Belshaw to see truth in any economic “creed" but the one he happened to embrace. It will be interesting If Mr Paterson can state what economic “creed” Professor Belshaw has embraced. If will be more interesting if Mr Paterson can definitely state that Professor Belshaw’s “creed” Is in operation to-day. However, Professor Belshaw stated that the Douglas theory was a false vision. It is a false vision. Mr Paterson has not, and cannot prove that it is not a false vision. Before he writes a mass of unsupported accusations against Professor Belshaw, Mr Paterson should at least prove that the Douglas theory is not a false vision. It is easy and simple for any person to make random accusations. I ask Mr Paterson to piVe his statements. We are satiated with erroneous and abusive statements. We are satiated with childish word-quib-bling. We want proof, and as that is not forthcoming, we want the admission that proof cannot be supplied. Mr Paterson mentions Kant. Kant was a philosopher, but it is unfortunate that Mr Paterson has neglected some

of his teaching. Kant had a great respect for the achievements of science, and he would not dismiss science. Kant had great faith in education. Evidently Mr Paterson has not much faith in education. He makes the ridiculous assertion that Professor Belshaw was educated to embrace one particular economic creed. In my letters during the present Douglas controversy, I have given reasons and facts which show that the Douglas theory is truly a false vision. Mr Paterson has seldom attempted to refute my reasoning. and he has never attempted to refute it with logical reasoning or facts. Many of his letters have not even contained, reasoning. Most <l' them have been amusing but useless attacks on my education and intelligence. So his latest attack is directed towards Professor Belshaw. Mr Paterson's letters certainly show that the Douglas theory is indeed a false vision. Nevertheless even though nc is trying to defend a fallacy, we would be very appreciative if. in the future. Mr Paterson could write a letter which would at least, possess some merit.— I am, etc., VALUE.